Judicial review is unlike almost every other aspect of the American legal and legislative processes. It’s different for several reasons, but it is most unique in the sense that it was put into practice before it was put in to the books as law. It was instituted by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803’s landmark case Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review has been around for over 200 years, and it still draws as much criticism today as it did the day it was instituted. John Marshall was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 34 years and presided over some of the most important and famous trials in our country’s history, trials such as McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, and perhaps most infamously, the Aaron Burr treason trial. But all of these cases pale in comparison to the impact of Marbury v. Madison, both then and now. In ruling that Congress does not have the power to change an opinion of the court, and that the Constitution supersedes any act of Congress it is in conflict with (in this case the Judiciary Act of 1789), Marshall perhaps forever changed the course of law in America. Marshall’s decision in Marbury was formed not by the facts of the case, but rather whether he had the jurisdiction to hear the case at all. The case went directly to the Supreme Court because Marbury was seeking a writ of mandamus and the Judiciary Act of 1789 states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in such cases. Article III of the Constitution, however, lists situations in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction and writ on mandamus cases are not one of the situations given. Given these facts, it was Marshall’s “emphatic and provincial duty” to say what the law of the land should be. He ruled that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that judges shall not enforce a law they deem to be unconstitutional. The decision in Marbury v. Madison sent immediate and long reaching shock waves through the U.S., and with good reason. With one...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...Pros and Cons of JudicialReview
Adam Kimball
Pol. 1110
Instr. Madigan
12/10/96
JudicialReview is the power given to Supreme court justices in which a
judge has the power to reason whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Chief
Justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme Court's right to translate the
Constitution in 1803 following the case of Marbury Vs. Madison, in which...

...JudicialReview
The Judicial Branch is one of the three branches of government, established in the United States Constitution. The Judicial Branch is a dual court system consisting of States Courts, and the Federal Courts, each have their specific jurisdiction. The States Courts hear all cases within the State. The Federal Courts only hear cases involving a Federal issue, an appeal from a lower courts decision and cases involving...

...democratic forms of government. Judicialreview is a part of democracy where a higher level court can review cases involving laws and make those laws invalid. It is an important part of the checks and balances in a democracy to limit power. Through the power of judicialreview, the Court is charged with assuring citizens’ individual rights as guaranteed to them. Judicialreview is important...

...exemplifies the protection of civil right and liberties with judicial activism.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An...

...JudicialReview: A Double-Edged Sword
JudicialReview: A Double-Edged Sword
1. Traditional theories of judicialreview hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political motives in judicial decision-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled v....

...﻿Judicialreview
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about court power over non-judicial branches. For court power over lower courts, see Appellate review.
Judicialreview is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary. A specific court with judicialreview power may...

...
In the 1825 case of Eakin v. Raub, Pennsylvania Justice John Bannister Gibson declared that the judicial branch of the government had no right to influence or control the actions of any other branch of the government. Thus, Justice Gibson declared the act of judicialreview unconstitutional and in disagreement with the proper role of the judiciary as inherently defined by the constitution. The proper roles and powers of the judiciary branch of...